Is it true?

[Sorcerer386]

A co-worker/friend of mine told me that a higher level judge threw out all of the cases against people who were caught using KaZaA. Did anyone else hear anything about this? He says it's ok to use KaZaA now.

[gldstwmn]

One of those rulings was overturned, however I think it was the case against Verizon for providing the IP addresses to the RIAA. The RIAA filed 500 new lawsuits last week.

[hayley]

As long as Kazaa is being used to steal, distribute, and pirate the works of others throughout the world without their permission, it'll never be "okay" to use.

iTunes, Napster, Rhapsody, etc. are all perfectly fine to use!

[dissention]

I'm don't like P2P networks because people use them to get entire albums for free; that's not right. However, I use them quite often (WinMX in particular) to find rare songs that you can't buy anywhere (live performances, demos, outtakes, single mixes, remixes, etc.). When people use it to just download a song or two that they heard on the radio, I could care less. But downloading entire albums instead of buying them? I don't like it.

[tommer]

why'd you even think of using kazaa? it's primitive, filled with bogus files, slow, legaly dangerous, and installs a bunch of vicious spywares in your machine.
in the future, use only Emule.

i believe that downloading music ain't more immoral than asking 20$ for a damn cd. and even more so, downloading would eventually contribute to the QUALITY of music we might be getting once a new status quo will be achieved at the music manufacturing and distributing field.
always remember that-
a. seems that there is more money in the music biz than needs to be, if the industry shrinks, all those who are in it for the sake of the big bucks would just go somewhere else to make their billions. those who would stay, are the ones who are there for the ART of it.
and
b. don't ever buy this **** about the artists being robbed. nowdays, only 5% of recorded music's profits actually reaches the artists themselves, in today's structure, they are the first ones who gets screwed.
c. kiefer sutherland is a genius (which is absolutly irrelevant, but still something one should keep in mind).

[hayley]

Music companies aren't saints- believe me, I know, I work for one- but in today's cultural climate, it's necessary for the vast majority artists who are aiming to be "supastahs" and global talent to have the big machine of a major behind them- it's not necessary for everyone, just ALMOST everyone.

Majors are HUGE corporations with a VERY marginal sales return- which we can argue all over the place is due to the ridiculous spending, etc., which is true and untrue at the same time.

Musicians and artists have a choice. They can sign with Universal and accept a crap deal, or they can keep plugging it on their own, if they have faith in their product, until they can do it on their own or be in a place to leverage a great deal. Most don't. They choose to take that admittedly crappy record deal. And whose fault is it? It's theirs- any for-profit company in their right mind looks out for themselves first.

The music business is just that- a business. It has many faults, but that doesn't make it okay to just steal a product citing the company's unfairness- you have plenty of options. I haven't spent more than $13-$14 on a CD in YEARS, especially now. I don't like Wal-Mart's labor practices but that doesn't mean I just go in and take **** off their shelves and walk out the door with it. You can download excellent quality songs that become YOURS, with no restrictions on burning, for $1. There are more options than ever now.

The only way to usher in change in the music industry is to actually support its efforts to expand into digital technology, etc. instead of just downloading **** for free until the perfect alternative comes along.

And by the way, as the industry shrinks, it shrinks like this- thousands upon thousands upon thousands of hardworking people who really do hard WORK because they love music, and have chosen to be in a career path where they sweat blood and tears for VERY little return (especially financially) to be part of what brings music to people- those people get laid off, and lose their jobs and their life.

[strandinthewind]

Well said hayley

[tommer]

hayley, you make some interesting points, but let me comment on some of them:

1. you are lucky enough to live in the country in which music is far cheaper than about any other country, it's not like you can't buy cd's for less than 20$ anywhere else, but they'd always be the ones who are on special sales or just plain old or second rate stuff.

2. you just admitted that major companies screw artists, considering the fact that i admire artists and despise those who screw others, and take advantage on the helpless, i do think there's some justice there, poetic justice to be more accurate.

3. claiming artists can actually make it today independently is absurd.

4. 1$ for a digital copy is a rip-off. if it costs nothing material-wise, i expect it to cost me less than it did in the vinyl days. yes, i'm old enough to remember that prices were artificially doubled.

5. let's say i do buy the download, i'm buying something practically immaterial, right? i'm buying the RIGHTS. okay? now look how funny it is, at first i bought Rhiannon on a Rumours LP, then i found a 7" once and got that one too, later i paid for rhiannon on the green greatest hits album, which i later upgraded to a cd copy (which of course cost me almost twice now) and the Rumours copy had to be upgraded too, i went on to buy that same song again when it was on the chain boxed set, so if i didn't miss on any other copies i might have purchesed and forgot to mention, i paid 6 times for Rhiannon's rights, how come i didn't get my last 5 copies for free? if material and actual disterbuting ain't a factor anymore, then i want back my money for 100s of cd's. if it is, then a 1$ for a Rhiannon mp3 means a new attempt to double prices again. would i have to pay forever? please, gimme a break, it's not like i'm mariah carey.

6. the industry shrinks and lays off workers because it's dumb enough to pay mariah 20 mil. to sign, and then another 200 to get rid of (and the rest of the money that's saved on wages, goes to bribe radio).

7. while the american market shrinks, the british one expands rapidly. is it because they manage to develop better artists and produce music more relevant to their consumers there?, but then again, it could be that they just don't have internet in the uk, so this one i'm not so sure about.

8. call me childish and naive, but i honestly believe that everyone, regardless of financial state, deserves music in their lives. same way people should be granted the right to finance food and education under any circumstances, they deserve music.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by tommer
. . . call me childish and naive, but i honestly believe that everyone, regardless of financial state, deserves music in their lives. same way people should be granted the right to finance food and education under any circumstances, they deserve music.

What - They can't turn on the radio

Sorry, I just could not resist

My position on downloading is this - if someone wants to do it and their conscious can take it - "who am I to keep [them] down." But, by the same token they should not be surprised or cry foul when the cops come and bust them for stealing someone else's stuff, because that is what it is in the U.S. until the law is changed. I mean no one has the right to determine for themselves and by some arbitrary standard when and where something that belongs to someone else should be free.

If that was the case, the next time I am in McDonald's I think I'll just reach over and grab some Big Macs and give them to the poor and then leave without paying for them. Clearly McDonald's can afford it and the poor are hungry. Moreover, I certainly would not want someone to steal what I am selling and call it legitimate because they do not want to pay for it or think I make too much money as it is. Who wants to be treated that way?

Note: I am in no way being "holier than thou" because I certainly have downloaded my share of stuff in the past, taped live performances, and taped the radio. Interestingly, my conscious cannot take it, so I have always bought the commercial record when available. In the case of FM and SN, I usually buy more than one copy of the same record - so maybe that makes up for the non-commerically available stuff like demos/outtakes/etc.

[tommer]

1. i meant owning, even if you want to, you cannot AVOID music today, but radio don't let you have your own artistic enviroment.

2. there's no need to be self righteous, if the owner of the rights chose not to release material and therefore did not intend on making any profits off this recording, unless you try generating profits off it yourself, you cannot be stealing from anyone. do sleep well tonight, you are still a very moral person.

3. if you are indeed very hungry, can't afford food, and steal a "big"mac, i think i'll find it heroic even.

[hayley]

Hi tommer-

I certainly am lucky to live here, where it's much cheaper to be a music fan. Hurrah! What bothers me is that music is the cheapest and most readily available here in America, and it's here in America that downloading and the "gimme gimme" attitude prevails the most.

I never said that majors screw artists, I never said that at all- I said that some people sign bad contracts or are uninformed when entering into an agreement with their record company, and then cry foul when the terms of the bad deal that they approved and signed comes back to haunt them. I have no respect for any musician or artist who comes into this business being uninformed about their rights and what they should and should not be able to have from their record company. If you're serious about your craft and wanting to make a career about it, then you'd better know your ****. A record company is a business like any other business, and while the company certainly does care about its artists (believe it or not) it's a profit driven company all the same.

Artists can certainly make it independently today, more than in any other time in the history of recorded music. The Internet has made it all possible for all artists, small (any artist on CDBaby), medium (Aimee Mann, etc.), or large (The Eagles). If they're not in a position to distribute and release their own records as a profit center independently, they DO have the ability to gain a huge following and create leverage in a way never before possible.

As for $1 being ludicrous- not at ALL. You ARE paying for something. You're paying for the cost of recording the track itself, the manpower it took to still finish, market, and distribute that track, the cost of server space and manpower at the digital service you're downloading it from, not to mention the HUGE cost incurred by making it more convenient for the consumer with credit card purchases. Something like 90 cents of your dollar goes to paying the CREDIT CARD companies for that purchase. Leaving 10 cents to be distributed to cover the rest of those costs. $1 ain't bad at all.

And it's not fair to whine about having to spend your $1 to get your new form of Rhiannon. No one's twisting anyone's arm to download and purchase these songs. Take your six other configurations and rip an MP3 for your own collection. That's perfectly allllright. It's your album, you paid for it, do what you want with it. Just don't give it to others for free.

No doubt the British market has it up on us in that they're developing new talent. But their lack of downloading capabilities or activity there has a HUGE impact on their industry over there. Major labels take chances ALL THE TIME on awesome developing artists. It makes it more difficult to take those chances, however, when people are downloading those awesome records instead of buying them. My company in the last several months has put out several artists- The Raveonettes, Mooney Suzuki, Carla Werner, The Coral, and soon we have the best Modest Mouse record ever out. Do you know how many people I've talked about those records with who complain that companies never put out new, edgy, non-CRAP and then tell me "btw, that Mooney Suzuki record was awesome- I heard one song and then downloaded the whole record." THAT'S the reason why that music doesn't get released here. It doesn't make any money. I can guarantee you that the number of downloads of a few of the Darkness' best songs over here outnumber by three or four times the number of their albums sold. THAT'S what's choking artist development.

Don't think I disagree with you that everyone should have the right to music. But it's sucking the LIFE out of music when the majority of artists are no longer encouraged to create that music when there's no longer a way to be rewarded for it.

Blah blah blah.

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by tommer
1. i meant owning, even if you want to, you cannot AVOID music today, but radio don't let you have your own artistic enviroment.

2. there's no need to be self righteous, if the owner of the rights chose not to release material and therefore did not intend on making any profits off this recording, unless you try generating profits off it yourself, you cannot be stealing from anyone. do sleep well tonight, you are still a very moral person.

3. if you are indeed very hungry, can't afford food, and steal a "big"mac, i think i'll find it heroic even.

I was not being self-rightous.

I was merely pointing out that under the currrent law, it is stealing when a song is downloaded but not paid for and then I made analogies to other areas in an attempt to explain why that law exists and in response to your argument that it is not stealing when you already bought the right the first time, etc. Again, download all you want, but it is breaking the law. I say we change the law.

[tommer]

hayley, artists don't get dropped because they don't make money, it's just that the revenues from their albums cannot cover the huge marketing and recording expenses the industry developed in the days when money was pouring like water there.

i happen to come from a place where music simply cannot be a huge business (making music in a language used by a 6mil. ppl market can't make anyone extremely rich), artists make most of their money from other money making factors and aspects in their careers (in fact, artists make more money from ringtones than from selling records) surprisingly enough music is still being created, and lots of it too. it actually works.

[dissention]

Originally posted by tommer
1. you are lucky enough to live in the country in which music is far cheaper than about any other country, it's not like you can't buy cd's for less than 20$ anywhere else, but they'd always be the ones who are on special sales or just plain old or second rate stuff.

This reminds me of DVDs and their pathetic region codes. People are forced to pay the highest price for them in places like the US and England, and they can't buy them from international stores from places like Thailand or Africa for cheaper. It's ridiculous.

[tommer]

Originally posted by dissention
This reminds me of DVDs and their pathetic region codes. People are forced to pay the highest price for them in places like the US and England, and they can't buy them from international stores from places like Thailand or Africa for cheaper. It's ridiculous.

even more ridiculous is the fact that most people (inc. you it seems) don't realize that they can easily outsmart that, and make their dvd's multy-zone in a matter of a few simple clicks.